NAIROBI, Kenya — Former Attorney General Justin Muturi has launched a scathing attack on President William Ruto’s administration, accusing it of using the newly enacted Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, to silence dissenting voices and curtail freedom of expression in Kenya.
In a post on X on Friday, Muturi said the government had disguised repression as regulation, arguing that the law was not designed to protect Kenyans from online crime but to suppress those who criticize authority.
“Somebody tell President William Ruto that Kenyans are not fools. Let’s not sugarcoat it. The so-called Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, is not a law against crime. It is a law against courage,” Muturi wrote.
“It targets not hackers or online fraudsters, but a generation that dares to speak truth to power without permission, without fear, and without a price tag.”
The controversial law, assented to on October 15, 2025, introduces new penalties for what it terms “false information,” “cyber harassment,” and “unauthorized access.”
However, civil society groups and digital rights activists have warned that its vague provisions could be weaponized to criminalize dissent and restrict freedom of speech.
The Kenya Union of Journalists (KUJ), the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), and several rights organizations have since moved to court to challenge the Act, describing it as unconstitutional and contrary to the spirit of Articles 33 and 34 of the Constitution of Kenya, which protect freedom of expression and media independence.
Following their petition, the High Court suspended the implementation of sections of the law pending full determination of the case.
Petitioners argue that the law’s definition of “cyber harassment” and “false information” is overly broad, giving authorities unchecked discretion to target journalists, activists, and political opponents.
Digital rights experts have warned that the law’s enactment represents a regression in Kenya’s democratic space, which had seen significant progress following the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution.
“This law carries the hallmarks of state control reminiscent of pre-2010 Kenya,” said one Nairobi-based constitutional lawyer. “It essentially criminalizes opinion under the guise of cybersecurity.”
Muturi’s remarks are the strongest yet from a senior government official, marking a rare public rebuke of the administration’s legislative agenda from within.
His statement also reflects growing unease among both legal practitioners and human rights defenders over what they term a creeping culture of fear and self-censorship.
President Ruto has defended the amendments, saying they were necessary to curb the spread of misinformation, online fraud, and cyberbullying.
But critics argue that Kenya already has sufficient laws to address digital crime under the Penal Code and existing cybercrime framework, without infringing on constitutional liberties.
The Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act was first enacted in 2018 to deal with online offences. However, its broad definitions of speech-related crimes have repeatedly drawn criticism and court challenges.
The 2025 amendments expanded enforcement powers and introduced stiffer penalties, reigniting debate about the balance between security and freedom in Kenya’s digital space.
As the court prepares to hear the matter, Muturi’s comments have amplified calls for a comprehensive review of digital governance laws to ensure alignment with constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards.
“The question is not whether Kenya should have a cybercrime law,” said a policy analyst from Article 19 Eastern Africa.
“The question is whether that law protects citizens — or the powerful.”
